Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[crescent]

It was a protest destroying property to protest a tax on the sale of that property. It is also one of the most celebrated protests in american history.

A protest which destroyed tea that was property of the British East India Company, which was essentially an autonomous part of the British Government - the tea, functionally, was government property. The tax on the tea was the primary means to fund the British colonial government, structured such that the local population had no say in how that government operated.

I don't see how burning down car dealerships and fast food joints compares. Those things are not the property of the government, and the tax burden is shared across many businesses, not just the select few.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I choose the police.

If I was a white supremacist, I would choose the police too. I'm not implying you are a white supremacist though...

 

[ponderingturtle]

A protest which destroyed tea that was property of the British East India Company, which was essentially an autonomous part of the British Government - the tea, functionally, was government property. The tax on the tea was the primary means to fund the British colonial government, structured such that the local population had no say in how that government operated.

I don't see how burning down car dealerships and fast food joints compares. Those things are not the property of the government, and the tax burden is shared across many businesses, not just the select few.

But that means police stations are valid targets for destructive protests.

 

[crescent]

But that means police stations are valid targets for destructive protests.

At least that is connected to the source of the oppression. Like the tea party, it could hobble the ability of the government to function.

Unlike during the tea party era, citizens now have the ability to redress grievances through voting for their government, we have taxation AND representation, even if the representation functions poorly. Also, as stated previously, the tax burden is widely distributed, unlike in 1773 when a disproportional amount of government revenue came from the sale of a single commodity. A protest to deprive local governments of revenue would be difficult, as so much of it is collected indirectly - homeowners mostly pay property tax through the escrow accounts on mortgages and can't stop paying that tax without defaulting on the mortgage. Renters have an even more indirect step, pay rent to owner who pays via escrow via lender.

We could refuse to pay sales tax, but only if the businesses thay collect it went along with it, unless we try to boycott certain businesses as a means to stop paying sales tax - an ineffective strategy if we still need to pay sales tax at other businesses selling essentials like food and gas and such.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not sure I agree. What I see more and more of is groups of white people fighting cops or other groups of white people. The big BLM protests still happen, but many cities also have smaller but much more confrontational groups of protesters - and I think that does create backlash. There are people who are using the big BLM protests as a sort of cover to .... well, I don't even know what these smaller groups are hoping to accomplish. But they seem focused on fighting and burning. Denver officials denounce “anarchists” who damaged property, set fires during anti-police demonstration

Here's a twitter thread of that event. https://twitter.com/MarcSallinger/status/1297396960949702656

This was not a BLM protest, the city and police went to great effort to communicate that they understood this fight to be different from the actual BLM protest that also happened that same night.

But when things like this happen over and over again, people who support police reform also start to wonder what the police can do to deal with the small but very destructive bands of anarchist nihilists who seem to be using the BLM protests as an excuse and as cover to break things and fight and start fires. People may start to doubt or worry about efforts to dramatically restructure policing in America when they see people burning car dealships, fast food joints, landscaping trees, gas stations and just about anything else seemingly just as an excuse to fight with cops or militia (not to mention that the militia also live for this sort of confrontation, they love it when the anarchists set fires as that just reinforces the message that the militia are sending).


Lately it seems more and more like we've got two left-side movements going on right now - the BLM movement that wants genuine police reform, and the anarchist "movement" that wants no policing. We conflate them at our own risk. And the right-side militia loves, loves, loves the anarchist movement as that is just what they need to justify their own confrontationality, and serves as the perfect bogeyman to frighten people with.

There are also two right-side movements: Those who claim to stand for law and order and those who are domestic terrorists and commit violent crimes at a higher rate than any other politically motivated group.

And yet somehow, we are not only cool with that, but we are also able to make a clear distinction between the two to the point that conflating them is considered insulting.

 

[rdwight]

There are also two right-side movements: Those who claim to stand for law and order and those who are domestic terrorists and commit violent crimes at a higher rate than any other politically motivated group.

And yet somehow, we are not only cool with that, but we are also able to make a clear distinction between the two to the point that conflating them is considered insulting.

Who is 'we'? Experience here and other left leaning sites suggests the opposite.

 

[Emily's Cat]

People protesting for police reform: Good!
Anarchists burning down things indiscriminately: Bad.
People supporting law and order and opposing anarchists: Good!
People trying to instigate fights with anarchists: Bad.

 

[Suddenly]

Definitely is an issue when it is used as a defense against obvious misconduct that lead to a death. But sometimes it actually does matter if the facts are part of the response.

I'm only talking about the former. Any time a person dies of anything the instinct is to blame the victim in some way because it makes us feel less mortal, and sometimes that gets confused with thinking that the dead person was bad so not as much as a big deal.

Which is the flip side of when the dead are spoken of in glowing terms in order to make a police shooting seem even more senseless.

Since the destruction of said businesses are generally said to be caused by out of towners and the like, I don't think trying to play both sides is a good angle. No one local did it, but they deserved it because x/y/z doesn't seem like a winning formula. There are plenty of proper avenues to deal with the issues you suggest, most people aren't going to be super eager to switch from them to arson and looting as a better solution.

The "outside agitator" assumption is mostly just something moderates use to not have to contemplate just how exploitative and disruptive capitalism can be. It isn't people in the community frustrated beyond their breaking point, it is just random sociopaths out for their jollies. That avoids maybe having to contemplate that these moderates tend to profit from a lot of the causes of the demonstrations they want to think they support.


Sure, it may sometimes be someone seeking to discredit the demonstration or some kid from Oberlin that thinks random vandalism is praxis. The world is a big thing. Just that the outside agitator assumption has always been a common dodge to not see just how mad people are getting, and willful ignorance eventually ends poorly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

People trying to instigate fights with anarchists: Bad.

You misspelled republican heroes.

 

[crescent]

There are also two right-side movements: Those who claim to stand for law and order and those who are domestic terrorists and commit violent crimes at a higher rate than any other politically motivated group.

And yet somehow, we are not only cool with that, but we are also able to make a clear distinction between the two to the point that conflating them is considered insulting.

That's a strawman, it does not even come close to reflecting my feelings on the matter - go look through the Cliven Bundy threads if you want to see my feelings about the militia.

However, I can't "backlash" against the rightist groups because I'm not a rightist, I don't support that cause, I never have.

I get more upset when people purporting to support the same cause I support take actions that I feel harm that cause. Sometimes it is not about what they do - sometimes it is about what we do. If my side does the wrong thing, I am not going to ignore that just because the other side also does wrong things. And, if my side keeps doing enough wrong things, I might drop my support and efforts altogether. "Two wrongs don't make a right" pretty well sums up my concept of backlash in this context.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's a strawman, it does not even come close to reflecting my feelings on the matter - go look through the Cliven Bundy threads if you want to see my feelings about the militia.

More conservative heroes, just ask fox news.

 

[Emily's Cat]

More conservative heroes, just ask fox news.

Seriously, ponderingturtle, who are you even arguing with?

 

[Suddenly]

I don't see how burning down car dealerships and fast food joints compares. Those things are not the property of the government,.

This is a meaningless distinction in this context. Government has long been so pro-business that this is at best a technical distinction. Tax policy, law enforcement, economic subsidy, labor law, and so forth.

To take an example purely at random and not based an event that was a turning point or anything, if someone is alleged to have passed a fake bill at a store, the store can make a call and the accused could end up in jail or dead. The store can count on law enforcement to investigate, to take their side in trying to get redress, and use the threat of jail to force restitution regardless of guilt.

If a store cheats people, it is a civil matter.

 

[johnny karate]

That's a strawman, it does not even come close to reflecting my feelings on the matter - go look through the Cliven Bundy threads if you want to see my feelings about the militia.

However, I can't "backlash" against the rightist groups because I'm not a rightist, I don't support that cause, I never have.

I get more upset when people purporting to support the same cause I support take actions that I feel harm that cause. Sometimes it is not about what they do - sometimes it is about what we do. If my side does the wrong thing, I am not going to ignore that just because the other side also does wrong things. And, if my side keeps doing enough wrong things, I might drop my support and efforts altogether. "Two wrongs don't make a right" pretty well sums up my concept of backlash in this context.

I’m not saying that it applies to you, and I’ve read enough of your posts to know that it doesn’t.

I’m pointing out the inherent societal hypocrisy in how the two sides of the political spectrum are represented and viewed.

I think it’s great that people on the left feel the way that you do and believe in self-policing.

But that doesn’t happen on the right, nor is it required of them.

 

[caveman1917]

Anarchists burning down things indiscriminately: Bad.

H1: Anarchists burn down things indiscriminately.
H2: When anarchists burn things down, it is precisely targeted on explicit political grounds.

Observation of a sample of anarchists burning things down.

Now, from your other contributions on this forum I know for a fact you're not a drooling moron and you know very well how to distinguish hypotheses when observing a sample, so I can only assume you misspoke.

 

[Dr.Sid]

It was a protest destroying property to protest a tax on the sale of that property. It is also one of the most celebrated protests in american history.

You think it's start to a war ? You think the rioters have a chance to win in military sense ?

 

[Elvis666]

Pro-BLM protesters have not been required to observe curfew either for the most part.

In Nashville, I watched, on TV, as the police force the protesters off the streets at curfew for several nights, until everything calmed down enough for the curfews to end.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
US government account

President @realDonaldTrump is participating in a community safety roundtable in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
"We're here to show our support."
"My Administration coordinated with the state and local authorities to very, very swiftly deploy the National Guard, surge federal law enforcement to Kenosha, and stop the violence."
We are ready to do the same in any city that wants help.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump just said

"My former chief-of-staff. Where's Reince? Reince. Where is my Reince? Reince Priebus ... You are a very proud citizen of right here. You're still here. You never left, did you? You never would leave. You've done a great job. Thank you very much Reince."

Didn't he fire Priebus?

 

[William Parcher]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
US government account

President @realDonaldTrump is participating in a community safety roundtable in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
"We're here to show our support."
"My Administration coordinated with the state and local authorities to very, very swiftly deploy the National Guard, surge federal law enforcement to Kenosha, and stop the violence."
We are ready to do the same in any city that wants help.

This really could get him re-elected. Democrats must decide if Biden can and will stop the violent and destructive anarchy. If they think he can't or won't stop it then they might vote Trump. Same for centrists.